Agenct's Negligence

[Taita]

Like I said, an "employment agency" and "employment business" are legal terms which describe a particular way of doing business. The description defined in the legislation is fairly clear and you will find that pretty much every agent is acting as one or the other so they are bound by the relevant laws, including the ones that say they must not purport to be operating on any other basis. I was going to look up the references to all of this but when I saw your rep was "never made it past tape changer", I decided not to bother. I'm sure that if you google it then you can read all about it.

Actually, I do know all about it without the benefit of Googling. Another poster referred to the relationship between 'Principle & Agent'. Agreed there are legal definitions regarding employment agencies/businesses and Acts governing their behaviour but they do not refer to the relationship as one of 'Principle & Agent' which is something else all together. Suggest you check it out before you drop your deck of punched cards (again) on your way to the machine room!

[cojak]

No more rudeness and insults on this thread please.

[Taita]

No more rudeness and insults on this thread please.

If this is intended for me, I unreservedly apologise. My attempts at humour often fall short of a laugh!

[AussieDigger]

Yeah, whatever you do, if you are approached by Cooper Burns Recruitment and asked to submit for a role. Promise the earth, delivery zero. Communications - poor to nothing. Claim to be the number one but then don't they all ?

[factgasm]

Hello,

I started this thread and I am pleased to report a happy conclusion.

The dispute in question has now finally been resolved in my favour. The employment agent has conceded that they did indeed make mistakes and, as a consequence, I have now received a financial settlement from them to my satisfaction.

My solicitor believed we had a good chance of winning the case in court but it did not need to go that far. We went through pre-action protocol instead - the stage prior to court proceedings.

From the outset, the agent stated that they would defend their position vigorously. They tested us to the limit with various smokescreens, red-herrings, excuses and delays, but by remaining steadfast in our pursuit of the matter, the agent was made to see the error of its way - and pay up.

While our own evidence against them was always good, we knew that they were in possession of evidence that incriminated them. We asked them to provide copies of that evidence but (surprise, surprise) they refused, citing reasons of commercial confidentiality. We knew that was nonsense so we obtained a court order compelling them to hand that evidence over.

Despite serving the order on the agent, their response was to try to fob us off with copies of evidence we already held in our possession. Of course, we were already prepared for what to expect from them, so when it didn't arrive we warned them they might be held in contempt of court.

Finally and begrudgingly the agent handed over the evidence - only three days before mediation was to take place. When we read through it, it came as a revelation - it was even more damning than we had expected; the agent's negligence was plain to see. The game was up and the agent knew it.

Another tactic that they tried to use was the defence that employment agents are not a named category of professional under the laws on negligence. It is true that under the law, certain categories of professionals are explicitly named as owing a duty of care, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, IT professionals and so forth, but this does not automatically mean that everyone else is exempt.

The agent tried to argue that employment agents are not such a named category and therefore, because of that, did not owe a duty of care. We demonstrated to them that this defence is a nonsense. (I even bought a copy of the legal practitioners leading textbook* on the matter for myself to study it).

Quite simply, the law states that, except for a very small number of special groups, everyone owes a duty of care and employment agents are not exempt from this.

The agent, their solicitor and their insurers tried every trick in the book to avoid liability. Beating them was hard work but worth it. In the end, we won. I am content that justice has now been done, I can now close this chapter in my life and move on to better things.

Kind regards,

factgasm.


*Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence

[psychocandy]

How much then?

[Wanderer]

The agent, their solicitor and their insurers tried every trick in the book to avoid liability. Beating them was hard work but worth it. In the end, we won. I am content that justice has now been done, I can now close this chapter in my life and move on to better things.

Good to hear you got a result in the end because it sounded like a bit of a complex case that a lot of people would have simply dropped and walked away from.

I'd be interested to know how much you spent on time and legal fees though.